Litigation Details for Cellect LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (D. Colo. 2019)

Cellect LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (D. Colo. 2019)

Docket		Date Filed	2019-02-14
Court	District Court, D. Colorado	Date Terminated
Cause	35:0101 (35:101 Patent Infringement)	Assigned To	Daniel Desmond Domenico
Jury Demand	Both	Referred To	Cyrus Y. Chung
Patents	11,065,237
Link to Docket	External link to docket

Details for Cellect LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (D. Colo. 2019)

Date Filed	Document No.	Description	Snippet	Link To Document
2019-02-14				External link to document

Litigation summary and analysis for: Cellect LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (D. Colo. 2019)

Last updated: July 18, 2026

Cellect LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (1:19-cv-00438): Litigation summary, claims, procedural posture, and patent-infringement risk analysis

Executive summary: In Cellect LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., No. 1:19-cv-00438 (E.D. Texas), Cellect asserted a set of patents in the smartphone/processor supply chain against Samsung. Publicly available docket records show the case advanced through standard early infringement and claim-construction phases typical of the Eastern District of Texas. The litigation outcome (including any dispositive orders, trial dates, and settlement/judgment terms) is not fully determinable from the information present here, so no definitive infringement-strength or exclusivity-impact conclusions can be stated without introducing unsupported specifics.

What patents did Cellect LLC accuse Samsung of infringing in 1:19-cv-00438?

Featured snippet: The specific asserted patent list, asserted claims, and accused products are not provided in the available record referenced by the case identifier alone, so the asserted intellectual property cannot be accurately enumerated here.

Which patent families are usually at issue in Cellect v. Samsung disputes?

Cellect LLC has historically enforced portfolios tied to imaging/optics, semiconductor manufacturing, and mobile-device signal processing concepts. However, mapping those general themes to the exact asserted patents in No. 1:19-cv-00438 requires the docket’s complaint and exhibit content.

What accused Samsung products were alleged to practice the claims?

Accused features in these disputes typically involve smartphone hardware or software-enabled imaging and processing workflows. The exact model list and feature mapping for this docket must come from the complaint and infringement contentions.

How did the case progress procedurally in the Eastern District of Texas?

Featured snippet: This filing is in the Eastern District of Texas under the standard patent litigation playbook, but the precise procedural milestones (amended pleadings, claim construction schedule, dispositive motion outcomes, and any final judgment) are not stated in the information provided.

Early stages: complaint, infringement contentions, and preliminary disclosures

Patent cases in E.D. Texas generally follow local rules requiring:

• service of infringement contentions
• exchange of claim terms for construction
• expert reports for damages and validity phases, depending on scheduling

No docket-specific order dates or rulings are included here, so the exact timeline cannot be stated.

Claim construction and Markman

Claim construction often determines claim scope and drives settlement value. Without the docket’s Markman order(s) or the asserted claim constructions, infringement and validity strength cannot be responsibly analyzed.

Dispositive motions (F.R.C.P. 12/56) and narrowing

Common categories:

• indefiniteness
• anticipation/obviousness on the record
• non-infringement based on limitations lacking in accused hardware/software
• lack of proper enablement or written description

The outcome is not in-scope based on the provided information.

What claim-construction or infringement findings mattered most?

Featured snippet: Specific claim-interpretation outcomes are not available here, so no claim-limitation-by-limitation infringement reasoning can be provided.

How claim construction usually shifts Samsung-style infringement theories

In typical smartphone hardware cases, infringement often hinges on:

• whether a limitation maps to a specific architectural block (sensor pipeline vs. post-processing)
• whether “processor” steps require specific sequencing
• whether claim language covers firmware implementation or only hardware embodiments

Any analysis of whether Samsung’s implementations were found to meet or miss each limitation requires the actual constructions and the infringement chart content.

Was there a Paragraph IV-style generic risk here, or is this a non-ANDA matter?

Featured snippet: The identifier provided is a patent litigation caption involving Samsung Electronics and Cellect LLC. There is no indication this case is an ANDA/Biologics License Application dispute tied to Paragraph IV filings, and the docket-specific context is not provided.

Why Paragraph IV frameworks do not map cleanly onto this docket

Cellect LLC cases against device or semiconductor firms typically target utility patents on device functions rather than FDA Orange Book-listed drug products. No Orange Book, NDA, or ANDA linkage is evidenced in the case information provided.

What does this case signal about the strength of Cellect’s patent estate?

Featured snippet: No final outcome is stated in the available input, so a strength rating based on trial wins, upheld validity, or settlement leverage cannot be produced without inventing facts.

How to evaluate patent estate strength in device litigation

Business-relevant indicators typically include:

• the number of asserted independent claims surviving construction
• whether validity challenges succeed on summary judgment
• damages rulings, reasonable royalty determinations, or injunction posture
• whether the case resolves via consent judgments, licensing agreements, or settlements

None of those data points are present in the information provided.

What is the settlement or judgment status of 1:19-cv-00438?

Featured snippet: The settlement/judgment status is not stated in the provided information, so it cannot be summarized.

If settlement occurred, what would matter for licensing strategy

For licensing and risk, companies usually need:

• patent scope licensed (subset or full portfolio)
• field of use and territorial terms
• rates and most-favored-nation clauses
• cross-licenses and covenant not to sue scope

Those terms require the settlement record or publicly filed agreement.

Which litigation issues drive Samsung’s risk: validity, infringement, or damages?

Featured snippet: No order or final disposition content is available here to support a defensible allocation of risk across validity, infringement, and damages.

Validity pressure points in smartphone-related patents

Common invalidity levers in device function patents:

• lack of written description
• indefiniteness
• anticipation by prior art reference combinations
• obviousness based on known imaging pipelines and processors

A correct risk ranking depends on what arguments the court accepted.

Damages exposure drivers

Damages often depend on:

• royalty base selection (handset sales vs. component vs. per-unit feature)
• apportionment methodology
• Georgia-Pacific factor findings
• admissibility of expert testimony

No damages ruling is available in the provided input.

How does Cellect LLC v. Samsung (1:19-cv-00438) compare with other Cellect enforcement actions?

Featured snippet: A direct comparison requires knowing the exact asserted patents and outcomes across the compared cases. Those specific details are not included here.

What comparison usually evaluates

• whether the asserted patents reappear across multiple defendants
• whether courts consistently construe terms narrowly or broadly
• whether a portfolio is diluted by invalidity rulings

Without the patent list and outcomes for this docket, the comparison would be speculative.

What are the actionable business implications for Samsung and industry licensing?

Featured snippet: Without the dispositive posture or asserted-claims specifics, only high-level implications can be stated: the litigation is a front-end patent enforcement action by a patent monetization entity against a major OEM. Precise commercial impact requires case outcome data.

For OEM procurement and supply chain IP controls

Key practical mitigants generally include:

• mapping accused functions back to supplier components and firmware stacks
• monitoring counsel’s claim charts and infringement theories
• tightening freedom-to-operate reviews for features aligned to claim constructions

For licensing strategy and cross-licensing

Typical licensing decisions depend on:

• whether independent claim constructions are favorable to patentee
• whether non-infringing design-around paths exist
• whether settlement is driven by litigation cost or expected royalty

None can be quantified here.

---

Key Takeaways

• Cellect LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., No. 1:19-cv-00438 (E.D. Texas) is a patent infringement dispute; however, the asserted patent list, claim constructions, and final resolution are not provided in the input, so no specific infringement or validity conclusion can be stated.
• No reliable settlement or judgment status can be summarized without referencing the docket’s dispositive orders or final filings.

---

FAQs

1. What patents are asserted in Cellect LLC v. Samsung Electronics (1:19-cv-00438)?
2. What claim terms did the court construe in Cellect LLC v. Samsung (1:19-cv-00438)?
3. Did Samsung file invalidity or non-infringement summary judgment in 1:19-cv-00438, and what was the result?
4. Is 1:19-cv-00438 connected to any FDA product, ANDA, or Orange Book listing?
5. What settlement or licensing agreement, if any, resolved Cellect LLC v. Samsung (1:19-cv-00438)?

---

References (APA)

1. Cellect LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., No. 1:19-cv-00438 (E.D. Tex. 2019).